cassanovascotian:Z-clipped: I'm not out to make enemies, but I'm not going to bend over backwards to avoid offending people who are in the very act of pushing their religion on me in the the public forum. They're the aggressors, whether they (or you) recognize it or not. Fark 'em. The law is on my side, and I'll take every inch it affords me, just like these people in TFA did.

Sure, if that's what's important to you, then go and fight your crusade.

All I'm saying is don't pretend that you're motivated by a concern for gay-rights, reproductive issues, or basically any other humanist concern.

You're either confusing me with IDW, or vastly overestimating the strength of this gambit.

You're obviously not.

I beg your pardon- Exactly how do you arrive at the conclusion that I don't support humanist concerns? Are you saying that in order to promote gay rights and women's health in the face of religious oppression, we need to capitulate to the same pressures in other arenas? That's ludicrous.

I, however, am motivated to promote progressive principles on these issues

OK, good for you. The current social and political trends correlate with demographic information to imply that, though we may not be progressing as quickly as some of us would like, these issues are under control and we can look forward to their resolution in the reasonably near future. But these are not ultimately the issues relevant to the discussion we're having. We're discussing religious displays on government property, which is its own important battleground.

I fail to see how a city cancelling holiday display permits because the christians involved first complained about others wanting equal time, and then vandalized the competing displays does anything to hurt the marriage equality movement. This is a war of ideas, where we can fight on many fronts at once, not a land war where we have to worry about where to put the cavalry.

Z-clipped:I fail to see how a city cancelling holiday display permits because the christians involved first complained about others wanting equal time, and then vandalized the competing displays does anything to hurt the marriage equality movement. This is a war of ideas, where we can fight on many fronts at once, not a land war where we have to worry about where to put the cavalry.

it's a war in which the limiting resource is credibility. When you define yourself as categorically "against religion" you lose a lot of yours.

WarszawaScream:AtheistsChristians: GET A GRIP. It's a farking nativity sceneflying spaghetti monster. How about you stop protesting victimless acts and displays of faith and devote yourselves to something useful to mankuind?

Happy Hours:Eat More Possum: You want a religious scene up? Put it up on your own land

I'm pretty sure religious speech is covered by the First Amendment. This point was that not only can the government not impose a religion on anyone, they also cannot stop you from practicing your religion.

You militant atheists are assholes

The Christers can get their nativity scenes if the atheists, Pastafarians, and Satanists all get to put up displays, too. What's the problem?

santadog:FTDA: santadog: Sort of off topic, maybe? I'm a photographer, and I find images all over the place. I shot this one in Austin, Texas in someone's yard. Now, I also sell my images. Just ended my first shows ever in Colorado. I've sold this image all over Texas, Ohio, and online without issue. My Sock Monkey Nativity Scene is usually a best seller, but offended at least 8 people at the Colorado shows. How do I know? Because they were very vocal about it.

One of the problems with Christians is they lost their sense of humor centuries ago.

CSS[imageshack.us image 640x427]

Not all of us have. I think that sock monkey nativity is hilarious!

YAY!! Cause that's all I wanted. :D

I don't take religion or life too serious, especially life because no one's made it out alive yet! If I did take religion as seriously as some of the stuffy types I've ran across in my life I'd probably never have created this photoshop.

In my smallish town in Tennessee, there's a local chainsaw artist. He's not very good, but since we don't have many artists around here, he's celebrated and the town allowed him to put some of his crap up on the courthouse yawn. It started with a 6 foot bear wearing a UT Vols shirt or something, which was okay I guess. Then, he made a life-sized Jesus statue, and they put that up, too. Soon after, he added a bunch of kids sitting around the statue's feet, but that wasn't enough. His magnum opus was to set out a table, and do a life-sized (but badly carved) last supper scene.

Well, this didn't go over well with my Dad, who is an atheist and likes to stir the pot, so my folks bought a 6-foot metal version of the statue of liberty to put up on the courthouse lawn with a plaque that had sayings from our founding fathers about the separation of church and state on it. They had the proper paperwork to set it up, but a week before they planned to get the statue out there, this beauty popped up on the lawn:

While not high art, I think it was pretty good for being made by a teenager in her garage. (That's my parents' statue to the right, and me to the left).

Was it trolling on my parents' and the kid's part? Maybe. But it was obvious that if someone didn't put their foot down, the entire courthouse lawn would be littered with ugly Christian chainsaw sculptures.

I don't have a pic of the last supper, but here's one I playfully dubbed "Surface to Air Jesus"

The town was in an uproar about it and the controversy even appeared on Fark. The city tried to make the girl take down her Flying Spaghetti Monster, but she had the proper paperwork and her dad lawyered up, so they made the decision to ban all displays from the courthouse lawn.

The First Amendment applies to EVERYONE, not just people you agree with

abb3w:DerAppie: If they did it to get equal time they should have picked another date.

However, they were also doing it to make it clear that there was not a government establishment of the Christian Religion, for which a display at another time would be less effective than a simultaneous display.

How was it a government establishment of a religion when another display contained a Hanukkah set up which was arranged by Jews? And wouldn't it invalidate the idea that the state is promoting a religion if you'd arrange for a different show later in the year? or would you argue that the state is suffering from a schizophrenic disorder which makes the state switch opinions every month depending on what is on display? Allowing Christians to have a nativity scene on a piece of land is establishing a religion in the same way that a Passover display establishes Judaism. Or a Muslim New year celebration is establishing Islam. It just doesn't work that way.

hbk72777: Why stop someone else from doing something?

Technically, the atheists didn't. They merely availed themselves of the limited public forum to add their own decorations.

If you claim 18 out of 21 spots for shiats and giggles you are in fact preventing other people from doing something. Especially if you leave them empty.

xanadian: It would've been fine if they had 1 or 2. Displays about the secular bit of Xmas. Or even a flat-out atheist thingee about how there's no God or something. That would've been fine. But 18 of 21!??

The lottery allowed winners to claim up to 9 spaces. They did.

And that is why they are assholes. They didn't need all those spots. The only reason they claimed them was to prevent access to others. Basic courtesy appears to be lost on those people.

The Dutch have nailed most things shut legally and socially but are pretty relaxed about what happens with it. Contrariwise the US claims freedom to do stuff yet I have never heard of a society with such a hard on for various rules, no matter how trivial the case. Sometimes I simply assume a lot of the US thinks their Book of Laws is divinely inspired.

browntimmy:WarszawaScream: AtheistsChristians: GET A GRIP. It's a farking nativity sceneflying spaghetti monster. How about you stop protesting victimless acts and displays of faith and devote yourselves to something useful to mankuind?

See how easy that was?

The only thing is that I have never once had a Christian drag me to a nativity scene against my will. Also, while we can denounce many Christians as hypocrites, we must also acknowledge that many of them have and do very much that is useful to mankind.

Would there be any controversy if Some new-age Druids put up a replica of a hinge in a public park and celebrated the solstice? What about secular rock concerts and other events that are offensive to Christians, Jews or Muslims? I'd say we have more than enough hypocrisy to go around. Let the Christians have their nativity. They aren't harming anyone by it. I'd say far more harm is done to the community by the atheists, who somehow got the idea that two wrongs make a right - to wit, they have the right to dictate to others how what is a Christian holiday may be observed in public.

JackieRabbit:I'd say far more harm is done to the community by the atheists, who somehow got the idea that two wrongs make a right - to wit, they have the right to dictate to others how what is a Christian holiday may be observed in public.

Yes because "please display my scene too" is "dictating to others how what is a Christian holiday may be observed in public." My eyeball sockets don't support the level of eye-rolling required to respond to this.

DerAppie:The Dutch have nailed most things shut legally and socially but are pretty relaxed about what happens with it. Contrariwise the US claims freedom to do stuff yet I have never heard of a society with such a hard on for various rules, no matter how trivial the case. Sometimes I simply assume a lot of the US thinks their Book of Laws is divinely inspired.

Metaphysical Ham Sandwich:JackieRabbit: I'd say far more harm is done to the community by the atheists, who somehow got the idea that two wrongs make a right - to wit, they have the right to dictate to others how what is a Christian holiday may be observed in public.

Yes because "please display my scene too" is "dictating to others how what is a Christian holiday may be observed in public." My eyeball sockets don't support the level of eye-rolling required to respond to this.

No, they are not. I have never once experienced this. Christians have long accepted and even embraced the secular aspects of the celebration. New atheists, in their unwarranted arrogance, refuse do do it. You are locked in on a narrow point of view and refuse to see the validity of any others. How does this make you any different that one of the fire-breathing evangelicals? Grow up. There's enough room in the world for all of us. Or maybe you'd be more comfortable in a less pluralistic society.

Too bad simple logic and tolerance make your eyes roll so hard. Maybe this is why you cannot see? Remember what Gandhi said "All that an eye for an eye accomplishes is to make the whole world blind."

JackieRabbit:Metaphysical Ham Sandwich: JackieRabbit: I'd say far more harm is done to the community by the atheists, who somehow got the idea that two wrongs make a right - to wit, they have the right to dictate to others how what is a Christian holiday may be observed in public.

Yes because "please display my scene too" is "dictating to others how what is a Christian holiday may be observed in public." My eyeball sockets don't support the level of eye-rolling required to respond to this.

No, they are not. I have never once experienced this. Christians have long accepted and even embraced the secular aspects of the celebration. New atheists, in their unwarranted arrogance, refuse do do it. You are locked in on a narrow point of view and refuse to see the validity of any others. How does this make you any different that one of the fire-breathing evangelicals? Grow up. There's enough room in the world for all of us. Or maybe you'd be more comfortable in a less pluralistic society.

Too bad simple logic and tolerance make your eyes roll so hard. Maybe this is why you cannot see? Remember what Gandhi said "All that an eye for an eye accomplishes is to make the whole world blind."

StoPPeRmobile:DerAppie: The Dutch have nailed most things shut legally and socially but are pretty relaxed about what happens with it. Contrariwise the US claims freedom to do stuff yet I have never heard of a society with such a hard on for various rules, no matter how trivial the case. Sometimes I simply assume a lot of the US thinks their Book of Laws is divinely inspired.

[www.travelandleisure.com image 380x320]

Yup, one of the awesome festive days we have. Don't like it? Not my problem.

Mega Steve:In my smallish town in Tennessee, there's a local chainsaw artist. He's not very good, but since we don't have many artists around here, he's celebrated and the town allowed him to put some of his crap up on the courthouse yawn. It started with a 6 foot bear wearing a UT Vols shirt or something, which was okay I guess. Then, he made a life-sized Jesus statue, and they put that up, too. Soon after, he added a bunch of kids sitting around the statue's feet, but that wasn't enough. His magnum opus was to set out a table, and do a life-sized (but badly carved) last supper scene.

Well, this didn't go over well with my Dad, who is an atheist and likes to stir the pot, so my folks bought a 6-foot metal version of the statue of liberty to put up on the courthouse lawn with a plaque that had sayings from our founding fathers about the separation of church and state on it. They had the proper paperwork to set it up, but a week before they planned to get the statue out there, this beauty popped up on the lawn:

[img837.imageshack.us image 640x480]

While not high art, I think it was pretty good for being made by a teenager in her garage. (That's my parents' statue to the right, and me to the left).

Was it trolling on my parents' and the kid's part? Maybe. But it was obvious that if someone didn't put their foot down, the entire courthouse lawn would be littered with ugly Christian chainsaw sculptures.

I don't have a pic of the last supper, but here's one I playfully dubbed "Surface to Air Jesus"

[img13.imageshack.us image 317x422]

The town was in an uproar about it and the controversy even appeared on Fark. The city tried to make the girl take down her Flying Spaghetti Monster, but she had the proper paperwork and her dad lawyered up, so they made the decision to ban all displays from the courthouse lawn.

The First Amendment applies to EVERYONE, not just people you agree with

I'm from another small town in Tennessee (Collinwood.) I just got to say, even as a Christian I'm laughing my ass off at your dubbing that pic, "surface to air Jesus."

Just Bavarian, we're not that good with the whole church/state separation.

Which is why I'm always interested in the weird ways where that line is drawn in other countries, esp. the US. It does seem a bit arbitrary at times, even for legal matters. Tax-exempt churches, no school on Christmas or Jewish New Year, no problem with cities being utterly shut down on St. Patricks day, "In God We Trust" etc.

Let's say that, e.g. in that particular area of the city, during that particular time, those boxes are intended to be rented out to display Christian nativity scenes. In other locations and/or other times, other religions (and atheists) can make use of public property. That wouldn't establish a certain religion, nor prevent the freedom of exercising it, it would just schedule it (I did say that I'm German...). Just like you have different rallies or parades on different days.

Would that be any worse than "freedom of speech" zones?

My take on the article was that the atheist organizations went for the jugular mostly because the churches had been slapping them around for so long about how heathen they were, and about how un-American they were, and how their children were all going to hell because of their pinko liberal satanic views. I assumed the opportunity to punk them was too much to resist.

Sadly, it's the Christian Taliban over here in a *lot* of places. Didn't use to be that way - there used to be a 'live and let live' attitude for the most part, but the fundamentalist fervor that used to only be found in the rural south was packaged, commercialized, and applied to Politics in order to spread it further.

DerAppie:How was it a government establishment of a religion when another display contained a Hanukkah set up which was arranged by Jews?

Only allowing religious displays would still qualify; under current case law, the state can't even express a general preference for theist religions. "The Court has unambiguously concluded that the individual freedom of conscience protected by the First Amendment embraces the right to select any religious faith or none at all".

DerAppie:And wouldn't it invalidate the idea that the state is promoting a religion if you'd arrange for a different show later in the year?

Contrariwise, it could be argued a very effective way to convey atheists' lack of belief.

DerAppie:The Dutch have nailed most things shut legally and socially but are pretty relaxed about what happens with it.

The Dutch culture is a heck of a lot more homogenous than the US. There's some pretty major subculture divisions within the US, both regional and within regions.

DerAppie:Sometimes I simply assume a lot of the US thinks their Book of Laws is divinely inspired.

Actually, there's a significant fraction of nuts who do consider the Constitution to have been divinely inspired. (Mostly protestant strains, but I understand it's also Mormon doctrine.) You might bear in mind that several US colonies were founded by religious loonies who were chased out of Europe, and more weirdness has cropped up since.

JackieRabbit:to wit, they have the right to dictate to others how what is a Christian holiday may be observed in public

More exactly, deny others the right to dictate that only the Christian holiday have a privileged position in public.

JackieRabbit:Metaphysical Ham Sandwich: JackieRabbit: I'd say far more harm is done to the community by the atheists, who somehow got the idea that two wrongs make a right - to wit, they have the right to dictate to others how what is a Christian holiday may be observed in public.

Yes because "please display my scene too" is "dictating to others how what is a Christian holiday may be observed in public." My eyeball sockets don't support the level of eye-rolling required to respond to this.

No, they are not. I have never once experienced this. Christians have long accepted and even embraced the secular aspects of the celebration. New atheists, in their unwarranted arrogance, refuse do do it. You are locked in on a narrow point of view and refuse to see the validity of any others. How does this make you any different that one of the fire-breathing evangelicals? Grow up. There's enough room in the world for all of us. Or maybe you'd be more comfortable in a less pluralistic society.

Too bad simple logic and tolerance make your eyes roll so hard. Maybe this is why you cannot see? Remember what Gandhi said "All that an eye for an eye accomplishes is to make the whole world blind."

As long as we're throwing around Gandhi quotes, here's another: "Oh, I don't reject Christ. I love Christ. It's just that so many of you Christians are so unlike Christ."

browntimmy:JackieRabbit: Metaphysical Ham Sandwich: JackieRabbit: I'd say far more harm is done to the community by the atheists, who somehow got the idea that two wrongs make a right - to wit, they have the right to dictate to others how what is a Christian holiday may be observed in public.

Yes because "please display my scene too" is "dictating to others how what is a Christian holiday may be observed in public." My eyeball sockets don't support the level of eye-rolling required to respond to this.

No, they are not. I have never once experienced this. Christians have long accepted and even embraced the secular aspects of the celebration. New atheists, in their unwarranted arrogance, refuse do do it. You are locked in on a narrow point of view and refuse to see the validity of any others. How does this make you any different that one of the fire-breathing evangelicals? Grow up. There's enough room in the world for all of us. Or maybe you'd be more comfortable in a less pluralistic society.

Too bad simple logic and tolerance make your eyes roll so hard. Maybe this is why you cannot see? Remember what Gandhi said "All that an eye for an eye accomplishes is to make the whole world blind."

As long as we're throwing around Gandhi quotes, here's another: "Oh, I don't reject Christ. I love Christ. It's just that so many of you Christians are so unlike Christ."

Christians are just like republicans. They feel they can express their opinion however, whenever and to whomever they want all the time. If you try and express an opposing viewpoint they immediately cry "persecution." That gets old.

Caveat: Not all of them are bad, but those who tend to hold public forum, are.

Also, why are you militant for expressing an opposing viewpoint? They aren't picketing churches, which would still be okay, just ask the christians picketing family planning centers. It's just a persecution complex some groups have that can't stand being opposed.

abb3w:DerAppie: And wouldn't it invalidate the idea that the state is promoting a religion if you'd arrange for a different show later in the year?

To an extent, yes; but it would not send the message as clearly.

And to whom is the message aimed? I get the feeling that they are going for the bragging rights. Just the ability to tell each other that they got them good. No matter how you dress it up, it is simply juvenile behaviour based on the idea that their point is more valid than that of anyone else.

DerAppie: Especially if you leave them empty.

Contrariwise, it could be argued a very effective way to convey atheists' lack of belief.

Which didn't need 85% of the available space. While you might be right about it being effective I'm not convinced that they had such noble intent. They just wanted to pick up the ball and go home, ruining the game for the rest of the people.

DerAppie: The Dutch have nailed most things shut legally and socially but are pretty relaxed about what happens with it.

The Dutch culture is a heck of a lot more homogenous than the US. There's some pretty major subculture divisions within the US, both regional and within regions.

Which is why everything that could lead to the slightest of friction needs to be banned preventively? People could just grow up, enjoy the scene, have some eggnog/wine and then move on to the next large celebration. Maybe some food from the Middle East at the end of Ramadan. Or whatever Jews do during Passover/Hanukkah/etc. But nooooo, someone might feel excluded and we can't have that. Everyone has a festive day in public or no one gets to have one. And with a certain group having a serious lack of festive days the end result is clear. Always dealing with people according to the lowest common denominator results in a very bland society.

JackieRabbit:browntimmy: WarszawaScream: AtheistsChristians: GET A GRIP. It's a farking nativity sceneflying spaghetti monster. How about you stop protesting victimless acts and displays of faith and devote yourselves to something useful to mankuind?

See how easy that was?

The only thing is that I have never once had a Christian drag me to a nativity scene against my will. Also, while we can denounce many Christians as hypocrites, we must also acknowledge that many of them have and do very much that is useful to mankind.

Would there be any controversy if Some new-age Druids put up a replica of a hinge in a public park and celebrated the solstice? What about secular rock concerts and other events that are offensive to Christians, Jews or Muslims? I'd say we have more than enough hypocrisy to go around. Let the Christians have their nativity. They aren't harming anyone by it. I'd say far more harm is done to the community by the atheists, who somehow got the idea that two wrongs make a right - to wit, they have the right to dictate to others how what is a Christian holiday may be observed in public.

It would be a full time job to point out all the contradictory bullshiat in this paragraph. No one is denying the Christians their nativity. Aren't there any churches in that town? Are they not allowed to have lawns of their own? And if they decide, among themselves, that in order to spread the word to those who are unable to travel to their Church grounds and see their nativity scene that they want to put it up on city property - Why does that mean that no one else can?

Because that's where you are. Let the {insert religion here} have their nativity. They aren't harming anyone by it. Why is this less valid? Why is being equal to all, *on public property* a problem?

StoPPeRmobile:browntimmy: JackieRabbit: Metaphysical Ham Sandwich: JackieRabbit: I'd say far more harm is done to the community by the atheists, who somehow got the idea that two wrongs make a right - to wit, they have the right to dictate to others how what is a Christian holiday may be observed in public.

Yes because "please display my scene too" is "dictating to others how what is a Christian holiday may be observed in public." My eyeball sockets don't support the level of eye-rolling required to respond to this.

No, they are not. I have never once experienced this. Christians have long accepted and even embraced the secular aspects of the celebration. New atheists, in their unwarranted arrogance, refuse do do it. You are locked in on a narrow point of view and refuse to see the validity of any others. How does this make you any different that one of the fire-breathing evangelicals? Grow up. There's enough room in the world for all of us. Or maybe you'd be more comfortable in a less pluralistic society.

Too bad simple logic and tolerance make your eyes roll so hard. Maybe this is why you cannot see? Remember what Gandhi said "All that an eye for an eye accomplishes is to make the whole world blind."

As long as we're throwing around Gandhi quotes, here's another: "Oh, I don't reject Christ. I love Christ. It's just that so many of you Christians are so unlike Christ."

StoPPeRmobile:DerAppie: Everyone has a festive day in public or no one gets to have one.

Christmas crap has been out for over a month now.

Does everybody get 2 months?

To a certain segment of Christianity (who are well represented in this thread), an absence of explicit celebration of their traditions is considered equal to celebrating some other, competing tradition. If you're not currently drinking Coca Cola, that means that you are drinking Pepsi, because you are a militant anti-Coke-ist who hates Coke, and you are just as bad as, maybe even worse than, the people who kill Dr Pepper.

The statement "I'm not thirsty, thanks" is utterly incomprehensible to them.

CheapEngineer:Because that's where you are. Let the {insert religion here} have their nativity. They aren't harming anyone by it. Why is this less valid? Why is being equal to all, *on public property* a problem?

Give me one good reason why it is such a problem to have a religion put up a display on public land. just one. And it can't be "because the constitution says so" because that is no better than "because the bible says so." I want an original reason you came up with yourself.

Also: in before "before you know it we'll all be in church on Sunday because we once allowed a nativity scene." That's bullshiat and you know it.

StoPPeRmobile:DerAppie: Everyone has a festive day in public or no one gets to have one.

Christmas crap has been out for over a month now.

Does everybody get 2 months?

The displays in tfa are available for equal time frames so their is no conflict there. Everything beyond that, like the stores, aren't about Christianity but about people buying a lot of crap which allows the stores to make a pretty penny.

/Well okay thousands of pennies//Some of which are likely no longer pretty

DerAppie:CheapEngineer: Because that's where you are. Let the {insert religion here} have their nativity. They aren't harming anyone by it. Why is this less valid? Why is being equal to all, *on public property* a problem?

Give me one good reason why it is such a problem to have a religion put up a display on public land. just one. And it can't be "because the constitution says so" because that is no better than "because the bible says so." I want an original reason you came up with yourself.

Happily. I am an athiest, Everywhere I go someone is loudly proclaiming how fabulous the Lord is, and how I just don't have any values or morals or principles if I don't believe in the same Lord, the same way. Every friggin day. 90% of the legislators in the state I live in are Republican, and talk about how God insists they lower taxes, and deny benifits, and slash programs, because if you need help you should get it from prayer and your church, instead of a local municipal safety net. I'm told I'm going to hell for wanting women to have a right to choose, and for my daughter to have the right to love whoever she wants to, regardless of what their Lord says they should do.

So after 364 days of *that*, when I see that *only* the Christians are freely given the public lands that I pay to maintain as *yet another* place to swing their crosses at me, I get cranky. There are plenty of other places to put a nativity scene in town. 99% of the land in this town *isn't* Public Land, and is as pretty and as prominent as any other parcel. Use one of those. No matter what Pat Robertson says every friggin day on TV, not *everyone* in this town or state is a Christian.

Christianity isn't suffering so badly that it needs to shove it at people who aren't interested every goddamn day.

And I came up with this myself. Typed it out and everything. So I'll excuse your attept to be an insufferable asshole just this once.

DerAppie:Also: in before "before you know it we'll all be in church on Sunday because we once allowed a nativity scene." That's bullshiat and you know it.

Get over yourself. I can think for myself, and speak for myself, and can easily TELL YOU WHAT I THINK without you "helping me out", thanks.

\see, now I can't even say "get down off the cross' to you without using religious imagery, can I\\still a good metaphor

CheapEngineer:DerAppie: CheapEngineer: Because that's where you are. Let the {insert religion here} have their nativity. They aren't harming anyone by it. Why is this less valid? Why is being equal to all, *on public property* a problem?

Give me one good reason why it is such a problem to have a religion put up a display on public land. just one. And it can't be "because the constitution says so" because that is no better than "because the bible says so." I want an original reason you came up with yourself.

Happily. I am an athiest, Everywhere I go someone is loudly proclaiming how fabulous the Lord is, and how I just don't have any values or morals or principles if I don't believe in the same Lord, the same way. Every friggin day. 90% of the legislators in the state I live in are Republican, and talk about how God insists they lower taxes, and deny benifits, and slash programs, because if you need help you should get it from prayer and your church, instead of a local municipal safety net. I'm told I'm going to hell for wanting women to have a right to choose, and for my daughter to have the right to love whoever she wants to, regardless of what their Lord says they should do.

So after 364 days of *that*, when I see that *only* the Christians are freely given the public lands that I pay to maintain as *yet another* place to swing their crosses at me, I get cranky. There are plenty of other places to put a nativity scene in town. 99% of the land in this town *isn't* Public Land, and is as pretty and as prominent as any other parcel. Use one of those. No matter what Pat Robertson says every friggin day on TV, not *everyone* in this town or state is a Christian.

Christianity isn't suffering so badly that it needs to shove it at people who aren't interested every goddamn day.

And I came up with this myself. Typed it out and everything. So I'll excuse your attept to be an insufferable asshole just this once.

DerAppie: Also: in before "before you know it we'll all be in church on ...

Multiple audiences. The Christians, indicating "No, this space is not JUST for you"; the potentially persuadable (particularly younger generations) "there's other people with other ideas"; and yes, the other atheists.

DerAppie:No matter how you dress it up, it is simply juvenile behaviour based on the idea that their point is more valid than that of anyone else.

That can be turned around; "No matter how you dress them up, complaints are simply trying to make atheists go sit in the back of the bus."

Also, "such a problem" seems to require it be argued all the way from an is-ought bridge, which would appear a pretty far moving of goalposts. If you're going to demand that, I'd have to insist we start with more basic propositions still and dredge out the P's and Q's. Nobody would appreciate that.